• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy limping back to strength


More research you ask?


source
 
Goldenboy219 said:
More research you ask?



source
Click to expand...

The answers to my questions are not in your report. It's also critical that I don't give you MY numbers, I want YOU to research this. From reliable sources, if you would be so kind. So once again I ask:

1. Please tell me what percentage of the population is on welfare.

2. Of that percentage, how many commit crimes to supplement their income when they cannot make their money last.

3. What is that number (of people or crimes) in comparison with overall crime rates.
 

Your questions have very little meaning in regards to the discussion. I am not claiming that the majority of criminality is embedded in the welfare population.

I am stating an undeniable fact: Increased poverty (AKA intense wealth inequality) puts upward pressure on criminality.
 

Fine, don't answer my questions. But do not claim a 'victory' if you're not willing to defend it. You can't just take one study (by reading the abstract by the way, cause I know you didn't purchase that article) and claim that it is significant when it's really just being taken out of context with the big picture, which is the ENTIRE crime rate.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
I am stating an undeniable fact: Increased poverty (AKA intense wealth inequality) puts upward pressure on criminality.
Click to expand...

Poverty is wealth inequality? I don't like that definition. The impoverished of today could probably be the elites of the Classical period. Poverty should be the subsistence level.

And I assume that you're working on a response to my other post?
 
Epic,

Areas that are impoverished have far higher crime rates (along with more police presence) than higher income areas. Your questions are a red herring, as they do nothing to strengthen your premise; they only shift the debate.

The fact remains: poverty induces crime, and poverty is determined primarily by income.

Both you and Tony have argued that it is "optimal" to eliminate our social welfare system, of which i have responded that in doing so, we will increase the crime burden (although it is not felt in proportion). The impoverished face a greater burden than the rich actually.

Have i argued that welfare traps do not exist? Of course not.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Have i argued that welfare traps do not exist? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Being poor without welfare. Risk of committing a crime is p1.

Being poor with welfare. Risk of committing a crime is p2.

p1>p2.

The number of poor people when welfare does not exist. n1.

The number of poor people when welfare does exist. n2.

n2>n1.

The total number of poor people committing crime: np.

So the question becomes, which is greater, n1p1, or n2p2. It's impossible to prove either way (because theoretically it would be better to pick the option that lowers crime, although even this I may have a problem with), and so the moral argument sways the decision away from the conclusion that we should use welfare to deter crime.
 

Simple deduction will not achieve the result you desire. I am not here to play the morality game (morals are completely subjective).

Are you familiar with the efficiency wage hypothesis? (hint: this could be a set up, so choose your words carefully).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Simple deduction will not achieve the result you desire. I am not here to play the morality game (morals are completely subjective).
Click to expand...

I'd dispute that, but anyway, it was meant to show that a definite answer cannot be found.

Are you familiar with the efficiency wage hypothesis? (hint: this could be a set up, so choose your words carefully).
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Question: What is the primary determinant for having an income?
 
I think Golden and Phat make some valid points.
-crime increases with poverty.
-poverty is a lack of income.
-we can't possibly "welfare" people out of poverty. (lest we all become impoverished)
So handing people money to do with as they please is not the answer.
 
Capitalism (especially our system) requires a welfare state to achieve a more efficient outcome.
 
-we can't possibly "welfare" people out of poverty. (lest we all become impoverished)
Click to expand...

This one isn't necessarily true. It just depends on your definition of poverty. There aren't really any people in this country that are in poverty. People in poverty aren't getting the things that they need to live. Are there poor people though? Of course.
 
phattonez said:
I'd dispute that, but anyway, it was meant to show that a definite answer cannot be found.
Click to expand...

By using unrealistic/false axioms? Bad form Tony!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
By using unrealistic/false axioms? Bad form Tony!
Click to expand...

Nothing I said was false or unrealistic. I was merely showing that you can't ignore the effect that welfare has to encourage being poor.
 
phattonez said:
Nothing I said was false or unrealistic. I was merely showing that you can't ignore the effect that welfare has to encourage being poor.
Click to expand...

Your axioms were invalid.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
It helps eliminate unemployment and underemployment.
Click to expand...

I know how it can ALLEVIATE underemployment (though is it really worth the cost?), but how does it eliminate unemployment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…